1 Fuelling the Global Value Chains: What Role for Logistics Capabilities? Olga Memedovic 1 United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna, Austria [email protected]Lauri Ojala Turku School of Economics, Turku, Finland [email protected]Jean-Paul Rodrigue Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, USA [email protected]Tapio Naula Turku School of Economics [email protected]Abstract Intensifying competition and changing customer demands for better and cheaper goods and services, and faster delivery, have made the organizational systems of global value chains (GVCs) more complex and difficult to manage and coordinate. Leading enterprises in GVCs were forced to focus on their core competences while outsourcing other activities to enterprises that specialize in physical distribution and materials management, in transport and in logistics. Complex system of global value chain and networks are dependent on efficient logistics. The benefits arising from GVCs spreading could not be realized without co-developments in modern logistics services, underpinned by innovations in containerisation, intermodal transport and the application of information technology in physical distribution and materials management. As a result new innovative logistics providers and concepts have emerged but the development and provision of advanced logistics services varies from country to country. Countries seeking to benefit from globalization and from GVCs need to address key underlying factors of their logistics capabilities and how they impact on their industrial performances, productivity and competitiveness. This paper focus is on logistics capabilities and on how they can be monitored. The paper presents major changes in logistics industry since 1990s and discusses recent work to monitor logistics performances of countries with a composite index. The paper proposes constructing a new index to monitor logistics capabilities and concludes with policy recommendations for developing countries. Keywords: logistics industry, global value chains and networks, logistics performances index, logistics capability index, drivers of logistics capabilities, industrial policy 1 The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
27
Embed
Fuelling the Global Value Chains: What Role for Logistics
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
Fuelling the Global Value Chains: What Role for Logistics Capabilities?
Olga Memedovic1
United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Vienna, Austria
international transport, supply chain consulting and optimization, and customer services.5
The role of logistics providers in GVCs has gradually changed, both in content and in complexity
(Ojala et al., 2006). They are becoming value chain coordinators and integrators (Ojala et al.,
2006; Rodrigue, 2006). They coordinate and integrate various logistics tasks with manufacturing,
marketing, distribution and sales. Some of their distribution centres also perform simple
manufacturing tasks, like assembly and packaging, making the distinction between production
and distribution blurred. They often possess a wide range of competences and come from various
backgrounds, including transportation managers, freight forwarders, intermodal freight handling,
warehousing, information technology (IT) managers, software makers and supply chain
managers.
The logistics industry contributes around 14 per cent of global GDP (Rodrigues et al, 2005).
Usually logistics costs make up some 10–17 per cent of GDP in industrialized countries. In 2003,
in the United States of America spending on logistics was estimated at US$936 billion, while
spending on 3PL only was around US$104 billion, or over 11 per cent of this. Similar estimates
were given for the European 3PL market. In China the logistics market is also developing rapidly,
with spending on logistics estimated at around US$300 billion in 2003, and on 3PL at US$12
billion in 2004 (Ojala et al., 2006).
Since the early 1990s, the logistics industry has grown by around 10 per cent per year. The fastest
growth rates are in 3PL and 4 PL services, followed by international container shipping and air
freight (Ojala and Häkkinen, 2006). So, global logistics markets are developing rapidly and
4 This is in contrast to the Second Party Logistic (2PL) concept, where the internal transportation and warehousing
functions of a company are unified in a separate internal logistics department. In industrialized countries, almost a third
of logistics turnover is contracted to 3PL providers, while in many industrialized East Asian countries around 10 per
cent of trade-related transport services are provided in this way. 5 For instance, warehouses are adding value by using radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags (or transponders) in
packaging, assembly and storage. These automatic identification methods make it possible to keep track of products at
all times and enhance security.
7
competition in the advanced logistics services is intensifying.6 The industry is under continuous
pressure to develop new and flexible solutions, apply new management approaches, and to
innovative with practical applications of new technologies and new concepts to address more
stringent environmental regulations. Recently, the industry is confronted with raising prices of
petroleum and a debate shifting to energy security.
Providing advanced logistic services depends on adequate physical infrastructure, in line with
technological development, new organizational changes and the requirements for efficient and
environmentally friendly transport services. Inland infrastructure should match maritime
infrastructure; roads need to be suitable for container transport; ports need to be able to handle
containers; just-in-time inventory and physical movements of goods require timely exchange of
information helped by up-to-date information and communication (ICT) infrastructure and
technology, and by favourable legal and regulatory conditions. Also, customs and other border
agencies need to work efficiently and trans-border transportation need to be better harmonized,
particularly in developing countries.
New skills, new organizational and managerial capabilities, fast and efficient ports and customs
clearance procedures (i.e. trade facilitation capacity), and a stable and predictable business
environment are also fundamental. These drivers of logistics capabilities are important to leading
firms in GVCs, when looking for new suppliers and consumers, or for investing in competitive
industrial locations, but they contrast sharply with many developing countries‘ capabilities. Poor
infrastructure, low connectivity with global transport networks, low transport and SCM
capabilities, complicated and non-transparent administrative requirements causing long delays in
ports and customs, are serious obstacles for developing country producers wishing to participate
in GVCs and to access markets where they can compete on price. When infrastructure provision
is often a simple matter of investment and technical know-how, the regulatory framework is a
complex issue linked with politics and national interests.
According to recent studies, there are substantial differences across countries in their logistics
capabilities and its drivers that significantly correlate with country (region) differences in trade
performances and poverty, implying that substantial growth in trade and in poverty elimination
could be reached by improving them in lagging countries and regions.
6 In Europe, the top 20 companies account for 33 per cent of the logistics services market.
8
For developing countries to have a better participation to the global economy in line with their
respective resources and comparative advantages, adequate provision of trade infrastructure,
investments in market regulations and in training to develop specialized skills and efficient
custom procedures, are therefore essential. Monitoring and evaluating countries capabilities to
provide advanced logistics services competitively and benchmarking their logistics structural
factors, like hard infrastructure, quality of logistics services, soft infrastructure like laws and
regulations, and trade facilitation, are therefore an important step in understanding the challenges
logistics and freight distribution pose. This would help underpin decision making at different
levels, national and supra national, and would inform various private and public actors on how
infrastructures (hard and soft), SCM skills, and trade facilitation can be improved to improve
cross-border-trade.
3. Logistics Performances
It is clear that the development and provision of advanced logistics services varies from country
to country. In most developing countries, the market for these services is small or even non-
existent (Arvis, Raballand and Marteau, 2007), which can be a major deterrent for companies
wishing to establish a market presence. In such a context, governments at various levels must
therefore ensure that regulatory conditions do not unduly restrain and burden the logistics sector.
How challenging individual countries are perceived to be as trade and transport partners can be
analysed in several ways. Trade and transport operations involve many partners in the public and
the private sector, such as banking and insurance agents, and various logistics service providers.
Also, trading partners (buyers and sellers) often evaluate the practicalities on a case-by-case
basis. Figure 2 illustrates this by referring to the first worldwide Logistics Performance Index
(LPI) reported by Arvis, Mustra, Panzer, Ojala and Naula (2007).
The LPI is a composite index based on proxy measures for transport and information
infrastructure, supply chain management (SCM) and trade facilitation capabilities, which are
calculated based on a world survey of international freight forwarders and express carriers. The
LPI is based on seven underlying factors of logistics performance: (1) efficiency of the clearance
process by customs and other border agencies; (2) quality of transport and information
technology infrastructure for logistics; (3) ease and affordability of arranging international
shipments; (4) competence of the local logistics industry; (5) ability to track and trace
9
international shipments; (6) domestic logistics costs, and (7) timeliness of shipments in reaching
destination. The selection of indicators was based on interviews with professionals in
international freight logistics. The data was gathered from managerial level personnel of
international freight forwarding firms worldwide. The perceptions are therefore representative of
the views of a large range of logistics providers and logistics buyers.
The LPI rankings show that building the capacity to connect firms, suppliers and consumers, is a
key in a world where predictability and reliability are becoming even more important than costs.
Figure 2 shows that high-income OECD countries lead in logistics performances. They benefit
from economies of scale and scope, innovation and technological change in logistics services. On
average, the LPI is a good proxy for involvement of each country in GVCs and there is a
significant concordance with the location of the world‘s largest container ports.
According to the LPI, Singapore, a major global transport and logistic hub, ranks first, in tune
with its role as the world largest container port. At the other extreme are low-income countries,
particularly those landlocked in Africa and Central Asia. All developed countries turned out to be
top performers – among the seven most industrialized nations, Germany ranks 3rd
, Japan 6th, the
UK 9th, Canada 10
th, the United States 14
th, France 18
th and Italy 22
nd out of a total of 150
countries covered. There are also significant differences among developing countries with similar
incomes. China and Chile, for instance, rank 30th and 32
nd respectively, while countries in higher
income groups, such as several oil producers, tend to perform below what would be expected
from their income levels.
Logistics performances in developing countries vary significantly by group of countries. Those
developing countries with higher trade performances performed better than those with similar
incomes. Examples include South Africa (24th), Africa‘s top performer, Malaysia (27
th), Chile
(32nd
), and Turkey (34th), among upper middle-income countries; China (30
th) and Thailand (31
st)
among the lower middle income, and India (39th) and Vietnam (53
rd) among the lower income.
Figure 2 The Logistics Performance Index
10
Source: Data from Arvis, Mustra, Panzer, Ojala and Naula (2007): Connecting to Compete, The
World Bank
La
rge
Co
nta
ine
r P
ort
(m
ore
th
an 1
.8 M
TE
U)
Lo
gis
tics
Per
form
ance
Ind
ex
1.21
- 2
.25
2.25
- 2
.75
2.75
- 3
.25
3.25
- 4
.19
Not
ava
ilabl
e
11
Oil-producing countries perform below their potential and their logistics systems usually focus on
a handful of bulk export commodities rather than serving diverse trade logistics needs. The
exceptions are the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, which have become important financial
centres and global logistics providers, by recycling the substantial oil revenues generated by
many countries around the Persian Gulf into new venues. For instance, Dubai Ports World (DPW)
has become one of the most prominent global port operators, operating 42 port terminals in 27
countries. Those developing countries with better logistics capabilities tend to have higher foreign
direct investment (FDI), lower transaction costs, a diversified export structure and higher growth.
In some emerging economies with good export performances, private sector pressure for
introducing the institutional reforms and market regulations needed to support efficient logistics
operations were important.
Developing countries taking part in GVCs were keen to invest in ports, improve customs
procedures and set up linkages with the foreign partners in logistics value chains. Local firms had
better connections with foreign partners and markets and thus greater opportunities for
technological learning, innovation and development. Some have become leading players in high-
end markets. The economic performances of Singapore and Hong Kong SAR are partly a result of
their logistics capabilities (Arvis, 2007b; Carruthers et al., 2003). They have upgraded in various
value chains by using global and regional logistics capabilities to add value to Chinese products,
in order that they can meet the quality requirements of developed country buyers. These
intermediaries have moved from simply adding value by controlling the quality of manufacturing,
to setting up and controlling retail outlets and developing their own brands.7 They have followed
the upgrading trajectory of moving from original equipment manufacturing (OEM), to global
logistics contracting and to own brand manufacturing (Memedovic, 2005).
Low-income countries, landlocked countries or countries with political instability are at the
bottom of the LPI ranking. They have high transport costs, long delivery delays, and heavy
dependence on the logistic performances of transit countries.
Most new EU member states, for example, were able to improve their logistics environment in a
short time. This has shifted shippers‘ focus from infrastructure-based obstacles to advanced
logistics concepts, though policymakers often remain preoccupied with infrastructure issues.
Consistent government action, direct investment by foreign firms and extensive financial support
7 Feenestra (2002) reported that value added by Hong Kong intermediaries was estimated at an average of 16 per cent
of the value of exports.
12
from the EU were the key factors behind the rapid and positive development in these countries
(see also Gaush and Kogan 2001; Naula and Ojala 2002; Ojala, Naula and Queiroz 2004).
4. Drivers of logistics performances
4.1 Hard infrastructure
Unlike ICT infrastructure, which has improved rapidly in most countries, investing in transport
infrastructure to meet modern business needs has become a challenge for developed and
developing countries. In many cases, capital investments have not kept with traffic growth. For
instance, the United States has lost much of its primacy as a world leader in trade-related
infrastructure like airports, public transit, roads and bridges. The only major exception is rail,
which has seen a resurgence and with double-stacking make up the world‘s most efficient long
distance inland freight transport system. China, India, Japan and Europe are investing more in
their transport systems and in logistics infrastructure. These countries are also applying more
innovative approaches to infrastructure funding, construction, operations and management (The
Economist, 2007).
The relevance of transport infrastructure for logistics costs is high. Poor transport infrastructure
results in high transportation costs (because of higher fuel consumption and maintenance), large
inventories and inventory costs, long and uncertain delivery times and congestion in port areas,
where in many cases manufacturing is expanding faster than infrastructure capacity.
Several studies have suggested that, by lowering logistics costs, the stock and quality of a
country‘s infrastructure can have a significant impact on its productivity, competitiveness,
economic growth and poverty elimination. Limao and Venables (2001), estimate that
infrastructure quality makes up 40 per cent of the variation in transport costs for costal countries,
and for around 60 per cent for landlocked countries (in Carruthers et al., 2003: 118). Estimates
made by Calderon and Serven (2004b in Gonzales et al., 2007: 15) show that the volume of
infrastructure stocks has a significant positive effect on economic growth. Their scenarios
underline that if all Latin American countries were to catch up with the region's leader (Costa
Rica) in infrastructure stock, their long term per capita income growth would rise between 1.1
and 4.8 per cent annually; if they caught up with the East Asian median country income growth
would rise by between 3.2 to 6.3 per cent annually. Since these estimates show that infrastructure
13
is linked with a society's income level, and help raise incomes more than proportionately, this
suggests that infrastructure development should rank at the top of the economic development
agenda.
Investment in transport infrastructure can create positive externalities by stimulating demand for
small-scale businesses, by attracting FDI, by decreasing import and export prices, and by
ensuring better consumer choices. These can translate into higher welfare benefits. Markets that
are protected with high transportation costs results in lower competition and higher costs of
living. Better materials inputs supply are also associated with productivity growth in
manufacturing. Redding and Venables (2002) estimate that more than 70 per cent of the variation
in per capita income across countries could be explained by the geography of market and
suppliers, while better access to coastal/port areas alone could raise incomes by 20 per cent.
These are serious obstacles for national firms wishing to participate more extensively in GVCs.
In many developing countries, regional transport costs still explain a substantial share of the cost
of delivering products to the market, and are becoming higher barriers to trade than border
barriers (World Bank, 2004: 2). Measured by time and cost of delivery, producers and consumers
in some developing countries are closer to the American and European markets than to
neighbouring countries, because of the poor land access facilities. Shipping a car from Japan to
Ivory Coast (Abidjan) costs US$1,500 while shipping the same car from Abidjan to Addis Ababa
(Ethiopia) costs US$5,000 (Ibid). But, some export-oriented countries, like China, have followed
such a strategy on purpose. The transport infrastructure investment priority was along the coast,
particularly around major gateways, with the aim to propel the export-oriented manufacturing
sector and to secure economic development. This phase is mostly finished and substantial new
investments are now developing China‘s inland transport system.
The situation for landlocked countries is worse. Shipping a 20-foot container from Shanghai to
Chad‘s capital N‘Djamena takes about ten weeks and costs US$6,500, while shipping the same
container to a landlocked country in Western or Central Europe would take about four weeks and
would cost less than US$3,000 (Arvis et al., 2007b). The difference in time and costs is explained
by the quality of transportation infrastructure, standardization in inland shipment, and by the
governance and security environment.
Inventory holdings in manufacturing were found to be two to five times higher in developing
countries than in the United States because of poor infrastructure. If these inventories were
14
halved, they could cut unit production costs by 20 per cent (Guasch and Kogan, 2001, 2006, in
the World Bank Study by Carruthers et al., 2003).
Developed countries had the lowest freight to import value ratio over time (see Table 1), while
countries in Africa and Oceania had the highest. High transport costs diminish the
competitiveness of African products and create serious barriers for their producers‘ participation
in GVCs and in the world markets. Asian countries freight to import value ratio has decreased
over time.
Table 1 Freight costs as a share of import value, 1990, 2000, 2004 and 2005
Region or Country Group 1990 2000 2004 2005
World 5.3 5.0 5.1 5.9
Developed countries 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.8
Developing countries 8.6 6.6 6.0 7.7
of which in
America 6.0 5.0 4.4 4.4
Asia 9.2 6.8 5.9 5.9
Africa 10.3 9.6 10.0 9.4
Oceania 10.0 9.5 15.4 9.5
Source: Review of Maritime Transport 2007, UNCTAD 2007, p. 80, Table 42
Figure
15
4.2 Role of transport corridors
The North American and the European economies have for long benefited by the setting of long
distance transport corridors linking their inland markets to major trade gateways, namely port
cities but also cross-border ports of entry. For landlocked countries in Africa, developing
transport corridors to ports in coastal areas is essential, because high transport costs make their
products less competitive in the world market. Insufficient transport infrastructure constrains
intra-regional trade and regional competitiveness and makes consumers and producers worse off.
The World Bank estimates that if the roads were paved, trade between West African countries
could expand by up to 400 per cent on average and by 300 per cent in Southern Africa (World
Bank, 2007; see also UNESCAP 2003 and Chowdury and Erdenebileg 2006).
4.3 Stable and predictable business environment
Firm-level competitiveness and productivity is highly sensitive to the quality of the logistics
environment in which firms operate (Ibid.). An unstable and unpredictable business environment
often results in higher unit costs induced by higher inventories and by switching to more
expensive modes of transport to prevent disruption in the supply chain. For instance, American
16
businesses hold inventories equivalent to around 15 per cent of GDP, while inventories in Latin
America and other developing regions are often twice that amount (Guasch and Kogan, 2006: 9).
These induced costs are a more important differentiating factor in determining competitiveness
than direct costs (i.e. capital, material inputs, fuel and freight services). In the United States,
efficient shipments of intermediary and finished goods has contributed to cutting firms‗ average
inventory levels by a fifth over the last decade, and to a significant improvement in productivity
across the economy (Gonzalez et al, 2007: 16).
Eifert et al (2005: 14) pointed out that the costs for transport, logistics, telecommunications,
utilities, security and bribes are high and variable in many developing countries. In most African
countries they are between 20-30 per cent of a firm‘s total costs and between 7-12 per cent in
China, India, Nicaragua, Bangladesh, Morocco and Senegal. In contrast, in developed countries,
these costs are low and fairly invariant. In Zambia, for instance, three-quarters of the net total
factor productivity (TFP) gap relative to China can be explained by the excess in indirect costs,
while less than a quarter is caused by the gaps in factory floor direct costs (raw materials, skills,
technology, etc.) (Ibid: 17, 18).
Bowersox (2005) and Ojala et al. (2005), show that the logistics gap between industrialized and
developing countries is widening when total logistics costs, including transport, overheads and
inventories are considered. In industrialized countries, in the early 1980s, total logistics costs‘
share of GDP was between 15 to 20 per cent; by year 2000 this had decreased to less than 10 per
cent in the U.S., because of better SCM and cuts in inventory holdings. Comparable figures for
LDCs in early 2000 were over 30 per cent, and for the emerging economies between 15 to 20 per
cent (Arvis, 2007a: 24).
4.4 Quality of logistics services
Arvis et al (2007b) point out that the most important driving factors of logistics performance are
reliability of delivery, measured by the predictability of the clearance process, the timely delivery
of shipments, and by the quality of logistics services. Interviews with professionals in
international freight logistics show that in countries with high logistics performance there was
greater satisfaction with private than with public providers of logistics services, while this was
not the case in low performing countries. This is an important insight on the market failure
presence for these services in low performing countries. Undeveloped market, the absence of
17
competition and inadequate market regulations often lead to corruption or to poor quality of
logistics services.8
4.5 Trade facilitation
Cumbersome customs procedures, long clearance times for goods at customs, excessive and
unnecessary data and documentation requirements, and lack of coordination between customs and
certification organizations are also important determining factors of transaction and logistics
costs. Longer time requirements for border crossings may cause higher inventory holding and red
tape, adding more costs to already high logistics costs in developing countries. These
inefficiencies can be greater barriers to trade than tariff barriers.
Rules, procedures and mechanisms that help to simplify and standardize customs procedures and
make the information flows associated with the import and export of goods easier (also referred
to as trade facilitation) can help cut transit times and red tape, and thus to improve transparency.9
Trade facilitation is an important issue for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) because
they are often not equipped to cope with non-standardized customs procedures and
intermediaries, and for exporters in landlocked countries, because they have to transit several
countries to reach their export markets.10
Trade facilitation diminishes the discretionary (sometimes arbitrary) power of customs officials
and therefore cuts the scope of corruption. It also contributes to security through more effective
customs controls and to government revenues, which in some cases make up around 50 per cent
of government income. Revenue loss from inefficient border procedures in some developing
countries may exceed 5 per cent of GDP.
In a globalized economy, trade facilitation and efficient regulations directly contribute to
enhancing linkages of local supply chain with the global value chains. Some studies point out that
substantial differences across countries in the quality of trade facilitation, including port
8 Quality of logistic services, defined as inter-modal transport services, freight forwarding, 3rd Party Logistics/4th party
logistics is discussed in more detail in Ojala et al., in this IJTLID Special Issue.
9 According to the WTO, trade facilitation assumes measures to simplify, standardize and modernize import export and
transit procedures – particularly those relating to customs procedures. Better and clearer rules in this area could have
enormous benefits for development. By standardizing customs procedures common rules can improve transit times, cut red tape and improve transparency.
10 One-stop-shops are suggested in international fora discussion as one possible solution for SMEs to eliminate the
numerous intermediary steps needed to comply with custom procedures.
18
infrastructure, e-commerce use, customs clearance and regulatory administrations, are related
with the differences in the quality of trade performances.
Wilson et al (2004) estimate that enhanced capacity in global trade facilitation would raise world
trade by about US$377 billion (or by about 9.7 per cent). Of the total gain, the largest (4 per cent)
would come from e-business; 2.8 per cent would come from improvements in port efficiency; 2.2
per cent from improvements in regulatory environment, and 0.8 per cent from improvements in
customs environment. The gains from exporters‘ improvements in trade facilitation are much
greater than those from importers‘ improvements. Clearing the red tape at country borders would
generate roughly twice the contribution to GDP than tariff liberalization.
5. Monitoring Logistics Capabilities
5.1 The Logistics Capability Index (LOCAI)
Logistics Performance Index referred to in Section 3 provides a valuable snapshot of the
collective perception by international freight forwarders, who are constantly dealing with trade
logistics operations across the world. Still, this type of "soft data" should be complemented by a
representative set of "hard" indicators on countries logistics capability, to get a valid and
comprehensive picture of the situation. This section describes an attempt to create that type of a
tool.
Logistics capability is capacity of a country (location) to provide modern, reliable and dense
infrastructures, business friendly environment, high quality of logistic services, and trade
facilitation, to respond to contemporary business needs of efficient delivery of raw materials to
producers and products from producers to final consumers. Countries can be compared by their
logistical capabilities by constructing a Logistics Capability Index (LOCAI). The LOCAI
combines relevant data from various sources into a composite index. The higher a country ranks
in its logistic capability index the more likely a country will be able to attract FDI and to connect
to regional and GVCs.
LOCAI is a composite index of the five underlying factors, including modern infrastructure,
traditional infrastructure adapted to multi-modal transportation, trade facilitation, quality of
logistic services and soft infrastructure (Figure 1). Proxy measures for these underlying factors
19
and the availability of the data to construct them are described below as well as on Figure 3 and
Table 2.
Figure 3 Underlying factors of Logistics Capability Index
In constructing the LOCAI, some operational constrains are foreseeable and they relate to the
availability of input data. There are indications that a substantial part of the data for the least
developed countries could be entirely missing, or can be of poor quality. This problem is
unavoidable, but can be solved by the methodological design. A possible solution to the problem
may be to introduce a ―confidence score‖, which would suggest the reliability of the result data,
and depending how comprehensively some input data are covered. The confidence score would
allow including the most of the desired data sets, if not all-inclusive one. Another risk on the data
availability is the high gathering costs.
Modern
Infrastructure
Logistics
Capability Index (LOCAI)
Traditional infrastructure
adapted to multimodal transportation
Soft Infrastructure
Trade facilitation
Quality of logistics services
20
Table 2 Example of a Data Availability Matrix for a tentative Logistics Capability Index Index factors Sources Period
covered
(1997/98
onwards)
Country
or Region
I Modern IT Infrastructure [MI]
Measured by penetration:
Telephones
Internet Access
PCs
Digital
Access Index,
ITU, except
education
and literacy
All years
covered
Data
available
All years
covered
Data
available
II Traditional Infrastructure adapted to multi-modal
transportation [TIMM] (Defined as accessibility of ports and airports by road and rails,
adapted to multi-modal transportation). Measured by:
Transport costs as percentage of import value
Roads and railroad tracks per 1000 sqr km
Road-transport of (standard) container
Number of seaports and cargo-airports
Possibilities to handle containers
Stations and border crossings
Inventories in port by vol. (sqc) or standard-container
Daily costs of inventory holding
Turnover time for big container ships
Vessels in queue
UNCTAD/
WTO
World Bank
Various
sources
All years
covered
Data
available
but needs
to be
checked
All years
covered
Data
available,
but needs to
be checked
III Trade facilitation [TF] Defined a wide range of rules,
procedures, and mechanisms that can help the simplification,
harmonization, automation and speeding up of the goods and
information flows across the borders. Measured by:
Customs clearance time
Raw material stocks in comparison
With developed countries as percentage of GDP
Utilisation rate of trucks,
Charging/discharging costs in ports in developing and
developed countries for each unit of homogenous good
Delay times in delivery
World Bank,
EASTR
Various
sources
Data
available
but needs
to be
checked.
Data
available
but needs
to be
checked
IV Quality of logistic services [QS] Defined as availability and
quality of inter-modal transport services, freight forwarding, 3rd Party
Logistics/4th party logistics. Measured by:
Number of companies offering inter-modal transport